Luego v.

CSC
August 5, 1986
FELIMON LUEGO, petitioner-appellant, vs.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and FELICULA TUOZO, respondents-appellees.
Cruz, J.:
NATURE: Exact nature not stated. Action to question an order of the CSC in an appointment protest
FACTS

Feb. 18, 1983 - Felimon LUEGO was appointed Administrative Officer II for the Office of the Mayor, Cebu
City by then-Mayor Florentino Solon.
o The appointment was described as PERMANENT.
o But the CSC approved it as TEMPORARY because of a protest filed by Felicula TUOZO and
another employee against Luegos appointment.
Mar. 22, 1984 CSC found that Tuozo was better qualified for the Administrative Officer II position. Luegos
appointment was revoked.
June 28, 1984 Then-Mayor Ronald Duterte appointed Tuozo to the position.
Luego filed the present petition to assail the CSC order revoking his appointment.

ISSUE (HELD): W/N the CSC is authorized to disapprove a permanent appointment on the ground that another
person is better qualified than the appointee and, on the basis of this finding, order his replacement by the latter?
(NO)
RATIO
LUEGOS APPOINTMENT WAS PERMANENT IN NATURE

OSG: Luegos appointment was temporary and could thus be withdrawn at will. By accepting temporary
appointment, Luego should be deemed to have waived his security of tenure.

SC: While the OSG correctly stated the rule on temporary appointments, the rule has no application here
since Luegos appointment is PERMANENT.

The stamping of the words "APPROVED as TEMPORARY" did not change the character of the
appointment, which was clearly described as "Permanent" in the space provided for in Luegos appointment
paper (CS Form 33).

What was temporary was the approval of the appointment, not the appointment itself. And what made the
approval temporary was the fact that it was made to depend on the condition specified therein and on the
verification of the qualifications of the appointee to the position.
CSC NOT EMPOWERED TO DETERMINE THE NATURE OF AN APPOINTMENT

The CSC is not empowered to determine the kind of nature of the appointment extended by the appointing
officer, its authority being limited to approving or reviewing the appointment in the light of the requirements of
the Civil Service Law.

When the appointee is qualified and all the other legal requirements are satisfied, the Commission has no
choice but to attest to the appointment in accordance with the Civil Service Laws.

The approval is more appropriately called an attestation of the fact that the appointee is qualified for the
position to which he has been named. Such attestation is required merely as a check to assure compliance
with Civil Service laws. (In re Arcega)

The power of the CSC to approve and disapprove appointments under Art. V, 9(h) of the old Civil
Service Decree only pertains to the function of the CSC to check whether or not the appointee possesses
the appropriate civil service eligibility or the required qualifications.

If the appointee has the qualifications, his appointment is approved if not, it is disapproved. No other
criterion is permitted by law to be employed by the Commission when it acts on or as the Decree says,
"approves" or "disapproves" an appointment made by the proper authorities. In this respect the provision is
rather misleading.

Appointment is an essentially discretionary power and must be performed by the officer in which it is vested
according to his best lights, the only condition being that the appointee should possess the qualifications
required by law. If he does, then the appointment cannot be faulted on the ground that there are others
better qualified who should have been preferred. This is a political question involving considerations of
wisdom which only the appointing authority can decide.
o EXCEPTION: When the Constitution or the law subjects the appointment to the approval of another
office or body, e.g., the Commission on Appointments. In such cases, the appointment is completed
only after confirmation or approval from the approving entity.

The CoA can even review the wisdom of the appointment and can refuse to concur even of the
appointee has all the requisite qualifications under the law.
o The CSC has no such power under the Civil Service Decree. Its authority is limited to a nondiscretionary one, i.e., to determine if the appointee meets all the conditions required by the law.
CAB: By admitting that Luego and Tuozo were both qualified for the Administrative Officer II position , the
CSC has rendered itself functus officio. It had nothing else to do but affirm the validity of Luegos
appointment. CSC had no authority to revoke Luegos appointment simply because it thinks Tuozo is more
qualified. That would constitute encroachment of the discretion vested in the City Mayor.
Rule V, Section 91, of the Civil Service Rules on Personnel Actions and Policies is inapplicable because
neither Luego nor Tuozo is next-in-rank. Moreover, the rule is not absolute and the Civil Service Decree
allows vacancies to be filled by transfer of present employees, reinstatement, reemployment, or appointment
of outsiders who have the appropriate eligibility.
The political detachment of the civil service will be impaired if the security of tenure clause in the
Constitution is emasculated and appointments in the civil service are revoked and changed at will to suit the
motivations and even the fancies of whatever party may be in power.
o

DISPOSITION: Granted. Assailed CSC Order set aside.

The pertinent part provides: "whenever there are two or more employees who are next-in-rank, preference shall be given to the employee who is
most competent and qualified and who has the appropriate civil service eligibility.